FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

Amre17

Awfull Lawfull wrote: »

I can send you some Tort, if you can send me the newest Company and EU ones ?

I'm afraid I don't have either, did company a couple of sittings ago and havnt got to EU yet so I'm no help to you, sorry!

If you could even tell me what the last sittings duty of care, nervous shock and trespass questions were on it would be a huge help.. Like were they essay or problem Qs and what areas were they focused on??

-aboutagirl-

Amre17 wrote: »

I'm afraid I don't have either, did company a couple of sittings ago and havnt got to EU yet so I'm no help to you, sorry!

If you could even tell me what the last sittings duty of care, nervous shock and trespass questions were on it would be a huge help.. Like were they essay or problem Qs and what areas were they focused on??

I don't have the paper anymore but nervous shock and trespass were both on it as problem questions as far as I can remember.

Caoileann

Ned_led16 wrote: »

Jaysus starting to panic now a little - for those sitting 3-4 subjects is the general consensus at this stage to focus on 8 of the most frequently asked topics or are folks doing 10-11.

Think theres a lot of technique to these exams

After passing two last time I'm doing about 11-12 topics per subject. Hopefully that won't backfire too! No matter what we do its just a game of luck

chops018

I think Caoileann's right, at this stage if we have 8 or 9 topics covered we should just go ahead and try to learn it off, and polish parts up then hope the questions fall our way..... sometimes too much can wreck your head and muddle everything. Getting sick of studying at this stage, may keep trekking at it though!

Amre17

Could anyone tell me what last Octobers duty of care question was about?
Trying to narrow down negligence.. Have an awful bad feeling there mightn't even be a negligence Q this time around for some reason!! Anyone else thinking the same??

Miss_F

Amre17 wrote: »

Could anyone tell me what last Octobers duty of care question was about?
Trying to narrow down negligence.. Have an awful bad feeling there mightn't even be a negligence Q this time around for some reason!! Anyone else thinking the same??

It was an essay question . .

Establishing duty of care between the parties to a tort now falls within set categories which it is in reality no longer possible to expand or alter to any significant extent. Essentially the tort of negligence has grown up and provides certainty though restricting the creation of any new duty of care.

Critically discuss this statement paying particular attention to relevant case law

Amre17

Miss_F wrote: »

Amre17 wrote: »

Could anyone tell me what last Octobers duty of care question was about?
Trying to narrow down negligence.. Have an awful bad feeling there mightn't even be a negligence Q this time around for some reason!! Anyone else thinking the same??

It was an essay question . .

Establishing duty of care between the parties to a tort now falls within set categories which it is in reality no longer possible to expand or alter to any significant extent. Essentially the tort of negligence has grown up and provides certainty though restricting the creation of any new duty of care.

Critically discuss this statement paying particular attention to relevant case law

Thank you so so much!!

Mayebe

Hi there!

I know that it is probably been posted on here before but I've been searching for about an hour..and in my state of stress it aint helping! Could anyone possibly tell me what came up in Tort at the last sitting? Trying to see what to prioritise/potentially omit...

ryan606

Is the Charities Act 2009 in force yet?

-aboutagirl-

ryan606 wrote: »

Is the Charities Act 2009 in force yet?

Nope, still only 5 sections signed into law:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/si/0284.html

ryan606

Thanks!

doing

I made a horlox of Contract last time round, there were such a vast amount of topics touched on in every question that I simply ran out of time. So this time I need to cut my answers down to the bare minimum.

The question is, what level of detail when you cite the case law are they looking for?

My approach last time was to write out the entire case first and then say how it applied, but there simply isn't time to do that. Is it enough to simply reference the precise precedent the case set without going into the background of the case? EG if you were doing a question that covered Intention to Create Legal Relations could you just say -

"A precisely drafted and signed document (Haggar v DePlacido 1972) or serious oaths taken in front of witnesses (Hamer v Sidway 1891) can offset the presumption that there are no legal intentions in agreements struck between immediate (Leahy v Rawson 2003) family members."

- without going into the background of those cases? Or is more needed?

lolita60

doing wrote: »

I made a horlox of Contract last time round, there were such a vast amount of topics touched on in every question that I simply ran out of time. So this time I need to cut my answers down to the bare minimum.

The question is, what level of detail when you cite the case law are they looking for?

My approach last time was to write out the entire case first and then say how it applied, but there simply isn't time to do that. Is it enough to simply reference the precise precedent the case set without going into the background of the case? EG if you were doing a question that covered Intention to Create Legal Relations could you just say -

"A precisely drafted and signed document (Haggar v DePlacido 1972) or serious oaths taken in front of witnesses (Hamer v Sidway 1891) can offset the presumption that there are no legal intentions in agreements struck between immediate (Leahy v Rawson 2003) family members."

- without going into the background of those cases? Or is more needed?

Not entirely related to what you said but thought I would just pass on the topics given by one of the prep lectureres that we were advised not to go into the exam without knowing.....


- Offer and Acceptance
- Consideration
- Terms
- Misrepresentation
- Duress and Undue Influence
- Mistake
- Privity
- Exclusion, exemption and limitation clauses
- Discharge of Contracts
- Remedies

chops018

lolita60 wrote: »

Not entirely related to what you said but thought I would just pass on the topics given by one of the prep lectureres that we were advised not to go into the exam without knowing.....


- Offer and Acceptance
- Consideration
- Terms
- Misrepresentation
- Duress and Undue Influence
- Mistake
- Privity
- Exclusion, exemption and limitation clauses
- Discharge of Contracts
- Remedies

I have most of what you said covered so hopefully I'll be alright! Didn't cover exemption clauses or duress, but have a couple of topics in their place.

lolita60

chops018 wrote: »

I have most of what you said covered so hopefully I'll be alright! Didn't cover exemption clauses or duress, but have a couple of topics in their place.

Good to hear that but the one thing that would concern me is that Duress and Undue influence usually come up together.. Duress can be covered in a few hours its very straight forward. I would really recommend doing it especially of you have the rest done.

I can send you a sample answer if you like?? PM me you email

chops018

PM sent. Thanks a lot!

Amre17

Mayebe wrote: »

Hi there!

I know that it is probably been posted on here before but I've been searching for about an hour..and in my state of stress it aint helping! Could anyone possibly tell me what came up in Tort at the last sitting? Trying to see what to prioritise/potentially omit...

Hi..

I don't have the last sittings paper but I know the topics that came up -
Duty of care
Nervous shock
Professional negligence
Vicarious liability
Defamation
Trespass to the person
Nuisance
Limitation of actions

What you planning on covering?

chops018

Hi all,

I've covered the Family Home Protection Act 1976 and the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Co-Habitants Act 2010, as the last good few sittings seemed to focus on this when family property came up.

Was just wondering should I stick in the presumed resulting trusts part - the indirect/direct contributions, McC .v. McC (1986) case etc. as they haven't examined this in the last while?

Caoileann

For those taking the independent course, I didn't have time to watch the last couple of lectures but I assume the 'night before notes' are our hints?
Also, is there a 15th lecture/tutorial? I watched a bit of the last equity one and Ciaran mentioned a tutorial but not sure if I'll have access to that or if just for the revision course students. Thanks!

chops018

Caoileann wrote: »

For those taking the independent course, I didn't have time to watch the last couple of lectures but I assume the 'night before notes' are our hints?
Also, is there a 15th lecture/tutorial? I watched a bit of the last equity one and Ciaran mentioned a tutorial but not sure if I'll have access to that or if just for the revision course students. Thanks!

Don't be afraid to put the hints on up here

Ned_led16

Re:Criminal law
Russian Roulette here:

- Gotta choose 1 of the following to focus on:

(1) Characteristics crime
(2) Trial due course
(3) Class crime
(4) Minor and non minor
(5) Indict v Summary
arrest-able & serious

It is a game of risk analysis & assessment (gamble) - ive studied all areas but can only focus on 1 now ...tick tock tick tock - which will be no 4 - any reason why thats a bad choice?? Ive no exam grid here - but i sha-pose - ill have 11 topics covered so gotta get 4 ok, and 1 with a broad out look! to scrape a five -o result!

You can waist so much time when it comes to predictions- very frustrating! Its decoy from doing the work!!

Panic in the disco! I can taste the Cool crisp pints of Carlsberg baking in the sun already! hmmmmmmmm

doing

Ned_led16 wrote: »

Re:Criminal law
Russian Roulette here:

- Gotta choose 1 of the following to focus on:

(1) Characteristics crime
(2) Trial due course
(3) Class crime
(4) Minor and non minor
(5) Indict v Summary
arrest-able & serious

It is a game of risk analysis & assessment (gamble) - ive studied all areas but can only focus on 1 now ...tick tock tick tock - which will be no 4 - any reason why thats a bad choice?? Ive no exam grid here - but i sha-pose - ill have 11 topics covered so gotta get 4 ok, and 1 with a broad out look! to scrape a five -o result!

You can waist so much time when it comes to predictions- very frustrating! Its decoy from doing the work!!

Panic in the disco! I can taste the Cool crisp pints of Carlsberg baking in the sun already! hmmmmmmmm

I really think you need to do all of those. They're all related whenever questions on them come up.

parripassu

Could someone please post up the Constitutional tips?

Cheers!

kelmchugh

hey guys, could someone please please put up or dm me Q4 in the march 2009 paper and also Q8 in the Oct 2009 paper for constitutional? would really appreciate it.

Gibbonw2

How much and where can i buy the handiest compilathon of EU TREATIES. Also do they need to be 'pre-ordered'?

JCJCJC

Gibbonw2 wrote: »

How much and where can i buy the handiest compilathon of EU TREATIES. Also do they need to be 'pre-ordered'?

I got mine on Amazon.co.uk, 2011-2012 Blackstones version, around 25 euros.

JCJCJC

Anybody know if there's an accessible version of the Supreme Ct's judgment on the Linen Supply Of Ireland case on the www? It's not on Westlaw, Courts.ie or Bailii.

lolita60

Would anyone be kind enough to pass on Equity Predicitions??? Will send solutions/notes/grids in lieu

chops018

lolita60 wrote: »

Would anyone be kind enough to pass on Equity Predicitions??? Will send solutions/notes/grids in lieu

I wish I did. I just picked 8 or 9 topics and am hoping for the best. Even a couple of the topics I picked aren't even full topics - duty to invest, third parties and undue influence. Hope the questions fall my way. The other areas I picked are: the three certainties, charitable trusts, purpose trusts, specific performance, recission/rectification, interlocutory injuctions/mareva injuntions and proprietary estoppel. What have you gone with?

ananas

For Constitutional Tips there is really only one. Cover as much of the course as humanly possible. I went to the City Colleges Prep course (which was amazing) and Brendan said that there was absolutely no point in making any predictions as there was no telling with this examiner what he'll put up. He really is that random.

I've covered:
President and AG
Institutions (Courts, Oireachtas-not so much)
SOP
Locus Standi, mootness etc
Unenumerated rights
Family
Due process (38.1)
Justice to be administered in public (34), pre trial publicity
Freedom of Expression and Privacy
Equality
Fair Procedures and good name
Property and Livelihood (usually comes up with non delegation doctrine)

I may have left something out but my brain is fried at the moment.

For Tort, I'd be equally as wary of relying on predictions. I've heard that Defamation is tipped, but on looking at the reports, it seems to come every second sitting. I'll cover it in scant detail and pray that some of the jazz I've learned for freedom of expression might cover me. I've just left out limitations, occupiers, liability for fire and defamation (essentially).

Courtney for company seems to set a relatively nice paper but always throws in something crazy that noone would ever cover, like Inspectors? I'm trying to cover as much as poss but leaving out Capital Maintenance.

I'd like to warn everyone who is taking 'predictions' as bible and cutting themselves short. Do not rely on them. Think about it logically, the lecturers are not privy to information that is confidential. You can look at the exam grids and make an educated guess as to what might come up. The examiners don't like those who predict and just fling down what they've learned by rote on the exam paper. I'll give you an example of how predictions can screw you over. For EU October Sitting 2010, we were told that Fundamental Rights would be unlikely to come up and that a question on the Institutions would be likely to make an appearance. I had my pen poised to write an essay on the democratic institutions but nothing! Nothing!